Is Thackeray a Terrorist?

``So whose the murderer? tis like saying all the Murders that the Indian Army commits in Kashmir is because Mir Waiz or the Hurriyat Conference wants Independence... let me tell you something, it is on record that more 70% of those killed at Partition were people moving westward... and their children are proud of the sacrifices their ancestors gave for getting Pakistan and thats why they are the first ones to scream when there is injustice in Pakistan. ``

YLH, tell me what fascination does the number 7 hold for you guys. It is 70,000 killed by 700,000 troops in Kashmir. It is 700,000 troops have amassed at the border to harass Pakistan. And now, it is 70% of those killed were moving westwards. You could have pulled any number from thin air but somehow you always seem to pluck out 7.

Indian History at its finest:

`Pakistan is rattling its nuclear sabre`

Mind explaining what keera had bit Bajpai in 1998 that he went on with the nuclear tests? or what was up Indira`s rearside that she started tested nukes in 1974? India is the one who is responsible for the nuclear arms race in South Asia.

Harimau,

Still more lies, still more twisting of facts, still more fallacies. I don`t think you are even worth my time anymore. For an uncle `educated in Nehru`s time` you are too immature and uneducated to even waste my time on so I`d rather not read your `zillions of words` which are a waste of time. For the Israel post... let me say that my intention was to show how you bigots support a jewish theocracy but then single out Pakistan calling it exclusive, not that it was meant to be. As for painting Pakistan in other colors, surely Indians know a trick or two in that field for Indians love painting a God Obsessed caste ridden Hindu Theocracy as a `secular democratic` state and have done well in doing so.

1) The deadline for Interest free banking passed in June of last year. Has Pakistan adopted `Interest` free banking? No.

2) I don`t know the point you are trying to make through `Mandal commission`, but my point is simple. Mandal, a Hindu, was Pakistan`s first Law Minister (which is a very symbolic move keeping in mind that in Islam the preoccupation of the intellectual is law). I don`t know why you are so insecure about India that you have to make comparisons. By mentioning Mandal my intention is to show my countrymen that Pakistan was not meant to be a religiously exclusive theocracy. Why does that bite you so badly.

As for Hodson, why don`t you quote the pages I have asked you too?

1) Nothing you have quoted proves any of your assertions ie Jinnah was evil Jinnah was the devil Jinnah was power hungry.

2) Hodson`s view of Jinnah is very clear: Honest man of integrity, self-less, a logical and rational man. This is clearly expressed in the book unlike the obscure quotes you put which I still don`t understand what you are quoting in regards to. Do you have a `focus` problem by any chance? Attention deficit disorder perhaps? Cuz I have a few friends in the psychiatry profession who can help you.



Ladies and Gentlemen,

Uncle Harimau reminds me of a character `Janu German` from a PTV Play `Chohti see Duniya`. The play is about this other guy (I don`t remember the character`s name so lets call him Mr.X) who returns from `Villayet` to his small village in Pakistan. The villagers are naturally enchanted by him, but having been westernized, Mr.X gets sick of the villagers who keep bringing him mithai and doodh etc., so he starts being rude to the villagers. The ignorant Villagers in turn claim that he never went to `villayet` and challenge him to `English` Muqabla with `Janu German`. Mr.X doesn`t want to but is irked on by his wife.

So here is how the dialogue goes.. (note the similarities between Janu German and Harimau, and the ignorant villagers and Mr.Harimau`s supporters on this website).

Mr.X: Hello

Janu German: vat (what)?

M.X: What what?

Janu German: vy (why)?

M.X: What why?

Janu German: Stooooopad

Mr.X: Why are you calling me stupid?

Janu German: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p...

Ignorant Villagers in chorus: Wah Wah shabash Janu German Shabash.

Mr.X: Why are you doing the ABCD?

Janu German : one two three four five six seven eight nine

Mr X is flabbergasted and stunned.

Ignorant villagers pick up Janu German screaming `Janu German ko ingrezi ati hai, janu german sahee villayeti hai`.

That is exactly what Harimau`s supporters notable Rsaxena, Akash and MaheshG are doing. Harimau knows well that he is bs-ing out of his rear orifice, but he is taking advantage of the naivety of the people.



Sincerely

YLH

Ref ylh #: 472

[1) Has Interest free banking been enforced? The answer is NO. The federal Sharia court is usually ignored]

The Sharia Court has set a deadline on Islamic banking. When that deadline passes without Islamic banking becoming the law of the land, you can talk about the Sharia Court being ignored.

[2) When I spoke of the rarely used laws... I meant Islamic punishments. No one in Pakistan has ever been stoned, nor has any one had his hand chopped off.]

On the other hand, women have been jailed for preferring complaints about rape because, under the Hudood ordinance, they have to produce 4 male witnesses to the act of penetration which they are unable to; but they have confessed to having sex outside marriage and so are jailed. Tell me this is NOT happening in Pakistan. I will then be able to quote from Amnesty International reports so that you can go around saying I was quoting selectively.

[3) About the blasphemy law.. neither did I say it was `rarely` used which part of : [``laws in Pakistan, not even the horrible draconian blasphemy law, are based on anything remotely Quranic but instead on British common law, torts, and the Magna Carta ( Note: 295 C is an adaptation of British Government of India act 1935 295 A and is not a fundamental principle of Islam.. if anyone has an objection to this statement please show me the precedent for draconian 295 C in any of 5 Islamic jurisprudence traditions or any Islamic Law put in place by any state)... ]`` did your foolishness not UNDERSTAND?]

It is your Mullahs` claim and your government acquiescence in those claims that these punishments are based on your religion. Tell me and the world that the Magna Carta or British Common Law prescribes punishment of death for blasphemy. If so, why is it not part of the law in India too?

[There is known adage ... only a fool supports a fool... ]

Is this how you pay back Ayesha Fayyaz Sarwari who has come to your support?

[I merely mentioned that `thereotically` (and you can see not `Practically) it was possible for 200 million Hindus to move to pakistan.]

Even `theoretically` it is NOT possible for any Indian, even a Muslim, to move to Pakistan because the right of migration to Pakistan has been eliminated. I believe the effective date was 1954.

[My purpose was to defeat the ignorant statements of Mr.Rsaxena `oh but Israel is secular` and not glorify Pakistan.]

No, your your purpose was to paint Pakistan in colors other than black.

[Most of your questions have presupposition of guilt ... ]

On the other hand, what was Jinnah doing when he accused Hindus of a future united independent India of not willing to treat minorities fairly?

[1) Muslims of India and Hindus of India were unable to reconcile their differences and existed in isolated communities..]

Yes. Muslim nawabs and Hindu peasants did live in isolated communities. For that matter, so did Muslim nawabs live apart from Muslim peasants.

[inter-communal marriage (something which ironically Jinnah tried hard to promote earlier on in his career) was almost non existent.. ]

Now you have to drag Jinnah`s cradle-robbing marriage to Rutie as something which ironically Jinnah tried hard to promote earlier on in his career.

[2) BJP and the Hindu Nationalism is the truly populist demand in India. More Hindus will vote for BJP and more Hindus will want to impose `Hinduvta` on Muslims as well... asking them to create a new `composite` Islam (which I don`t think is a bad thing and I had grown up in India I would be very willing to do).]

As opposed to forced conversions in Pakistan.

[Jinnah`s appointments of J N Mandal first on the Muslim League seat in Interim cabinet, then as the acting president of Pakistan`s constituent Assembley and finally his appointment as the law minister of Muslim Pakistan clearly suggests that Pakistan should be secular and non-inclusive.]

As I have said before, the Mandal Commission recommendations on Scheduled Castes were first enforced in 1946 India and in Pakistan in 1947.

[Remember even Harimau`s misquoting of Hodson only partly explains the Interim Cabinet,]

What misquoting? Let Chowk tell me how to post a scanned image of a page and I will scan the image in.

About you not having Hodson`s book: if I can drive up to the local library and read up a copy, so can you.

Ref ylh #: 472

The Bottom line is that Pakistanis haven`t been able to reconcile themselves with India`s existence as a multi-cultural multi-religious society as is obvious by their reaction on these boards... Listen .. We wanted Kashmir, and we Got Kashmir... so live with it.

You were unable to accept this reality in 1947 and that resulted in three wars so far and the loss of Bangladesh. You are still unable to accept this reality and this time you are rattling your puny nuclear saber.

``The Bottom line is that Indians haven`t been able to reconcile themselves with Pakistan`s existence as is obvious by their reaction on these boards... seems to me that Urstruly was right all along about all of you. Listen .. We wanted Pakistan, and we Got Pakistan... so live with it.``

When I used to play with my nephew, I would ask him to choose between a 25 paise coin and a 10 paise coin. He would invariably go for the larger 10 paise coin, how much ever I tried to convince him that the other coin was more valuable. Your conclusions are very similar.

And don`t worry ylh, we Indians are not going to take your precious Pakistan away from you, so it`s safe :-). Just make sure that you don`t suffocate it with your crushing embrace.

Baffling questions about Indian lady in Pearl case

By Tariq Butt

ISLAMABAD: Security agencies are probing several baffling questions pertaining to the unauthorised stay of an American passport holder Indian Muslim lady, Asra Q Nomani, with whom the kidnapped Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl had been living in Karachi.

The abducted journalist`s worried wife is also putting up with Ms Nomani at a house in Karachi that the latter got on monthly rental of Rs 40,000 a few months back. According to the documents available with The News, Ms Nomani, as a journalist, had applied for visa to the Pakistan`s press counsellor in New York on September 19, 2001 to cover the happenings in Pakistan immediately after the September 11 incident that was refused. However, she later got the visa from Pakistan Embassy in Washington, and on October 19, 2001 requested the External Publicity Wing (EPW) of the Information Ministry for its extension on behalf of Salon.Com.

The EPW issued the recommendation to the Interior Ministry for extension of Ms Nomani`s visa for 15 days. After the expiry of this period, she never reported to the EPW or any other agency of Pakistan government and disappeared.

It was discovered by security agencies during investigation of Pearl`s kidnapping that Ms Nomani has got a house on rent in Karachi where she and Pearl have been living. The lady wrote in her request to the press counsellor that she wanted to visit Pakistan, her ancestor`s birthplace. She was married to a Pakistani national but the marriage broke after three months.

In her one page hand-written letter to the press counsellor, Ms Nomani said: ``. . . I believe there is no journalist who can give you my unique combination of professional integrity, audience and personal understanding of Pakistan and Islam.`` ``. . . I am one of America`s senior Muslim journalists, a veteran of the Wall Street Journal since 1988. I have covered everything from Wall Street to the White House. I am currently writing a book for Harper Collins Publishers [New York] regarding religion and its reporting has taken me to my extended family`s homes throughout Pakistan. The Internet magazine, which reaches millions, Salon.Com, has hired me to send dispatches of the true humanity of this crisis unfolding in the region of my birth.``

Continuing, Ms Nomani wrote: ``I uniquely understand the pulse that beats strong in Pakistan because it is the pulse of my 65 years old Dadi in Lahore, my `Chachas` in Karachi, my `Phuppi` in Islamabad.`` Salon.Com had also issued ``To Whom it May Concern`` letter to Ms Nomani that confirmed that she would be working as a journalist for Salon during her travels abroad. The documents showed Latif Manzil, Village Jaigahan, District Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh, as her address in India with her phone number 91-22-3675712 in Mumbai. Ms Nomani lives in Queens, New York, and her residence phone number is 718- 4310341, according to the documents.

(It looks like what`s baffling Iqbal and other pukis is that a Muslim woman would be sharing a room with a Jewish colleague. So she overstayed her visa, like millions of pukis have done in the US and India. Big deal! In the meantime, instead of investigating their own jihadi spawn, they spin wild fantasies about this ``Indian`` (like Dawood Ibrahim is Indian) woman - a self-described pukiphile.)

Back to Jinnah

By Ardeshir Cowasjee

When, on that rare occasion, we have heading this country a liberal man who preaches tolerance and who tells us that Pakistan was envisioned by its founder as a modern, free-thinking, liberal, secular state, in jump the mulla-maulvi faction, the obscurantists, the thesis writers, the great thinkers, some of whom were not even a gleam in their mother`s eye when Jinnah was around, who flail their arms and shriek `treason` at the word secular, and who with their narrow-minded thinking, intolerance and bigotry claim falsely that they are `Islamic`.

In a recent interview with Newsweek, Musharraf spelt out his vision of what Pakistan`s founder had in mind for his country, a vision he intended to bring to material form. Naturally, editorials were written expressing horror, protests poured in from all sides, and then entered his obsequious spokespeople with the inevitable `clarification`. And so it will continue, for much time to come, for as long as this nation is kept illiterate and uneducated and unable to reason, think, look around at the world it inhabits, and comprehend what it must do to fit into it. But we must never give up; we must continue to press home the points pressed by the man who gave this nation a homeland.

Three months before the partition of the subcontinent, in an interview with Doon Campbell of Reuters, Jinnah firmly stated: ``The new state will be a modern democratic state with sovereignty resting in the people and the members of the new nation having equal rights of citizenship regardless of religion, caste or creed.`` He repeated this on August 11, 1947, whilst addressing the members of his Constituent Assembly, making it doubly clear to them that religion is not the business of the state. He told them: ``You are free, free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.`` He could not have been more explicit.

Our learned men have it that the first steps taken in the Republic of Pakistan towards the framing of a constitution was the moving of the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly on March 7, 1949, by the prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan. The view is that this Resolution was intended to be a mish-mash of the general principles of an `Islamic` state and the accepted concepts of a modern `democratic` state. What the mish-mash has resulted in is a variety of conflicting interpretations, the orthodox and the obscurantists claiming that the Islamic tenets dominate and the more progressive, forward-looking plumbing for the democratic parliamentary way of governance.

When it was moved, the non-Muslim members of the Assembly expressed their fears that were the Resolution to be passed maulanas would gain the upper hand, and some questioned the phrase stipulating that the ``state will exercise authority within the limits provided by Him.`` What are the limits proscribed by God, they asked, and who will define those limits? Will it be the mullas or the gentlemen of a more liberal bent of mind? Could a non-Muslim become the head of state, for example? Liaquat Ali Khan`s response was rather ambivalent--in an Islamic state, he said, it would be ``absolutely wrong to say that a non-Muslim cannot be the head of administration under a constitutional government.`` Maulanas held differently and firmly : ``The Islamic state means a state which is run on the exalted and excellent principles of Islam [and it] can be run only by those who believe in those principles....``.

Dispute and divergence of view, disagreement and differences from day one. Yet, the honourable gentlemen of the Assembly, most of whom must have been present on August 11, 1947, when Mohammad Ali Jinnah laid down for them the principles which he wished to be embodied in the constitution of his country, took it upon themselves that day to repudiate the man responsible for putting them where they were.

Hasan Zaheer, of the erstwhile all-powerful CSP, in his book `The Separation of East Pakistan`, writing on constitution making, has this to say on the contentious Resolution: ``Liaquat Ali Khan, while moving the Objectives Resolution, claimed that since it provided for the exercise of power and authority of the state `through the chosen representatives of the people`, the Resolution naturally eliminates any danger of the establishment of a theocracy.

Little did he realize the opening that the Resolution was giving to the obscurantists and what the Munir Report called `political brigands and adventurers, even nonentities` to exploit the name of Islam in mundane political affairs and jolt the foundations of the state from time to time. None of the three covenants of the Muslims of the subcontinent, which spelled out the unanimous demand for a separate Muslim homeland, or homelands--the Lahore Resolution of 1940, the Madras Resolution of 1941, and the Pakistan Resolution of the Legislators` Convention of 1946--or the debates leading to these resolutions had mentioned anything about an Islamic state. Over the years, the Resolution proved a perennially divisive point of reference in the polity of Pakistan.``

It is this Resolution which forms the preamble to the Constitution of 1973, and it is this Resolution which, as Article 2A, is a substantive part of the Constitution, and which has more than proven that it is indeed not only highly divisive but also destructive. And, to boot, our great makers, breakers and amenders cannot even get it right. In the preamble, in one sentence, the original resolution has been adhered to: ``Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures;`` whereas in Article 2A which forms the Annex to the Constitution in the very same sentence the word ``freely`` has been omitted. Whether this was done wittingly or unwittingly is not known, but the question is that after the passage of 16 years since 2A was inserted by PO No.14 of 1985 why has it not been corrected? Is there a motive behind the omission of the highly pertinent and important word? Were our amenders plain sloppy, or were they wicked?

Musharraf rode in on horseback, and now is riding high. So far he is on the right track. His reflexes are sound. He has not yet heard messages from on high. But he does need to shun the oleaginous perennial sycophants who equate being with him as being in the presence of greatness, or who praise him fulsomely for his penetrating mind, his iron resolve, his calm demeanour. He does not need to be glorified or exalted. He needs to be supported.

Counterpoints and `COUNTERPOINTS`

``And on top of this stuff, anybody who makes a counterpoint is at once accused of being a bigot and other wonderful names``

What wonderful counterpoints Indians have : `oh Jinnah is an `idiot`` ... Oh Jinnah is the `devil` ... Oh Jinnah is the `ravan`.

If you have a better word than `bigot` and `freak` for those who make such counterpoints please inform me, I will use that instead.

Sincerely

YLH

Harimau,

The fact is that you know well you have misquoted Hodson, and you have lied through your teeth. Now this attempt to obscure the facts by throwing in nuggets and `factions` (fact+fiction) is not going to prove anything. We already know that you are a Muslim-hating Hinduvta nut who was educated in Nehru`s time, and apparently not `well` educated... because you keep losing out on logic to someone half your age.

As for your post about Israel... once again classic Harimau. Making Fallacies... Breaking Fallacies.

1) Has Interest free banking been enforced? The answer is NO. The federal Sharia court is usually ignored and their presence is much in line with the `fatwas` of Al Azhar in Egypt ... Does the Egyptian Government listen? I don`t think so.

2) When I spoke of the rarely used laws... I meant Islamic punishments. No one in Pakistan has ever been stoned, nor has any one had his hand chopped off.

3) About the blasphemy law.. neither did I say it was `rarely` used which part of : [``laws in Pakistan, not even the horrible draconian blasphemy law, are based on anything remotely Quranic but instead on British common law, torts, and the Magna Carta ( Note: 295 C is an adaptation of British Government of India act 1935 295 A and is not a fundamental principle of Islam.. if anyone has an objection to this statement please show me the precedent for draconian 295 C in any of 5 Islamic jurisprudence traditions or any Islamic Law put in place by any state)... ]`` did your foolishness not UNDERSTAND?

But I don`t blame ya... That is the only thing you know... twist words and facts... and create lies. Well done Harimau, you have exposed yourself well.



Rsaxena,

tsk tsk bechara bacha. So you couldn`t follow the discussion and now you are vying for attention eh?

Even an idiot can see that none of your friends have been able to even question the premise of my argument atleast on facts... sure they have made stupid and corny statements that make no sense except to the like minded. There is known adage ... only a fool supports a fool... and hence we have you supporting other fools who are more adept at relevant BSing while your cra-p is mostly irrelevant.

So live in your fools` paradise and with your ever worsening `Saddam Husain` complex... I have no problem with you.



Dost Mittar,

There is nothing in my statements which are indefensible. I am open to debate. As for your latest analogy... how about this: The Minorities of Pakistan are the ones who look up to Jinnah. The Minorities of Pakistan are the ones who see him as their savior. The Minorities of Pakistan have been using his words and only his words to fight for their rights. I am rather puzzled at the intent behind your post? Is it just simply that you too as your Indian creed seemingly dictates are ganging up so to speak? Cuz you said that Jinnah being perceived as such was simply a `perception`... so then I have not argued with that. Clearly that perception was wrong? So your point of the post was? I am also well aware that Pakistan is not the perfect place that Jinnah imagined. I merely mentioned that `thereotically` (and you can see not `Practically) it was possible for 200 million Hindus to move to pakistan. My purpose was to defeat the ignorant statements of Mr.Rsaxena `oh but Israel is secular` and not glorify Pakistan.

Perhaps people on these boards just don`t read.I have said it atleast 1 million times to you Indians that whether jinnah was the best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity or Communalist or an ariel Sharon in pre-Partition India... THAT IS IRRELEVANT. What is relevant is the fact that when he made Pakistan, (for which we are thankful to him and which was a great emancipation from the likes of Harimau and others who wish to impose a certain `Indianness` on even the Muslims in India today (read BJP.org)) He made close to 50 odd speeches in which he spoke of a modern democratic egalitarian secular Pakistan. This is my point. Like Sri Prikasa, the first Indian High commissioner to Pakistan says ` the lawyer defending the rights of Muslims in India became after partition the defender of the rights of Hindus and Christians in Pakistan. The fact is that when placed in a Majority situation as the head of the state, Jinnah first of all renounced the TNT, distanced himself from Muslim Nationalism, and became committed to equal rights for all in Pakistan. Now both Advani and Ariel Sharon have been in power and have been acting like spoilt brats. That is the difference. In Israel the only logical analogy can be made between Jinnah and David Ben Gureon who also created a country for a religious group. I`d say

Ariel Sharon is to David Ben Gureon, what Zia was to Jinnah.

There are many people who might have seen Jinnah otherwise due to their misconception of the man. One such fella was `Sailesh Kumar Bandopadhaya` who writes in his book how much he hated Jinnah in 1946... but says that when `I came to read about Mr.Jinnah`s life while researching this book, I understood that he was not a communalist and not a bigot.`

But all Indians on this board are cowards.. they are unwilling to pick up the books by Indian authors that I have given them... all of whom had at one time hated Jinnah and had come to a different conclusion after researching his life.



Tvarad,

Most of your questions have presupposition of guilt ... you speak of personal gain when none of Jinnah`s arch rivals accused him of accused of that. They called him brave incorruptible and honest ... or do you doubt the judgement of people like Gandhi and Nehru?

You haven`t asked me any worthwhile question since a little more reading would show you the facts otherwise. Jinnah`s leadership of Pre-partition Muslims and his Pakistan demand are two different things. Read the Lahore resolution for example. It calls for Muslim Majority states to secure the power base for Muslims, and suggests no population transfer... and as Jinnah said so many times, that once such a solution is arrived at, the Minorities of India ie Muslims should be loyal citizens to the Indian state, and Minorities of Pakistan should be loyal to Pakistan. Jinnah`s original Pakistan demand had clearly included the notion of sort of federation between Pakistan and Hindustan in form of an Indian Union which would in essence secure the power base for Muslims in their Muslim Majority areas and yet maintain a sort of semblance of unity... that plan was wrecked by Nehru as Shammi has said so many times.

Let me make something else clear ... whatever new feel-good terms you might come up with .. there are a few irrevocable facts:

1) Muslims of India and Hindus of India were unable to reconcile their differences and existed in isolated communities.. inter-communal marriage (something which ironically Jinnah tried hard to promote earlier on in his career) was almost non existent.. you didn`t find Muhammad Rams and Krishna Alis running around in the subcontinent. Harimaus are and Harimaus were the Majority in India... Not you or not the Dost Mittars and certainly not the shammis... accept it.

2) BJP and the Hindu Nationalism is the truly populist demand in India. More Hindus will vote for BJP and more Hindus will want to impose `Hinduvta` on Muslims as well... asking them to create a new `composite` Islam (which I don`t think is a bad thing and I had grown up in India I would be very willing to do).

3) Jinnah and the Muslim League didn`t particularly have a problem with Gandhi or Nehru or the like... their worst fears lay in the actions of Hindu Mahasabha which was slowly eroding the Congress ranks... and Congress itself had always been a Majority Hindu party if nationalist ideally. The same people are in power in your country.



You say you are exposing my fallacies. Here are my points about Jinnah... show me how anything of what you (or anybody) have said have challenged these well accepted facts:

1) Jinnah was the Only politician in History of the Subcontinent to be called the Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity and that too by people like Gandhi, Nehru and Sarojini Naidu. Same people called Jinnah `brave, incorruptible, unbreakable, unpurchaseable, selfless and honest`.

2) Jinnah`s Pakistan demand was endorsed by More Non Muslim groups than Muslim groups. The scheduled castes, christians, and many other groups rallied to Jinnah`s leadership. B R Ambedkar, India`s first law minister, in his book `Pakistan or Partition of India` endorses the Pakistan demand. Furthermore, Jinnah`s appointments of J N Mandal first on the Muslim League seat in Interim cabinet, then as the acting president of Pakistan`s constituent Assembley and finally his appointment as the law minister of Muslim Pakistan clearly suggests that Pakistan should be secular and non-inclusive. Remember even Harimau`s misquoting of Hodson only partly explains the Interim Cabinet, and not why Jinnah appointed the same man as acting president of PCA and later law minister of Muslim Pakistan. Any fool can appreciate the symbolic value of appointing a Hindu as the first law minister of a `Muslim` state.

3) All of Jinnah`s Post Independence Speeches as well as many of his pre-Independence speeches talk of a modern democratic egalitarian secular Pakistan where everyone would have equal rights. This was his vision for Pakistan. That he made Pakistan for `communal` reasons, eventhough an untrue argument logically, is irrelevant anyway.

4) Minorities in Pakistan use Jinnah`s speeches and Jinnah`s words to fight for their rights especially since Zia started infringing upon them. Why does it burn up Indians so much?





In any event it is clear that most of you are only ready to make stupid feel good and emotional statements without any facts or figures or sources or evidence.

Let us recollect how this debate started:

1) Harimau initiated an unprovoked attack on how we, Pakistanis, should not use Jinnah`s words.

2) I responded to that by quoting Jinnah`s speeches, words and actions that he took in Independent Pakistan which very clearly indicated that Pakistan should be a secular democratic modern country.

3) All of you jumped in calling Jinnah a `communalist`, `bigot`, `idiot`, etc

4) I politely reminded you all that a) this was irrelevant to the discussion since my focus was Post-Partition activities of Jinnah as a head of the state of Pakistan and not his activities as a Minority leader fighting for Minority rights within United India. Secondly I showed with Historical facts and evidence that Pakistan demand was neither communal nor exclusive and that it was supported by many many non Muslim groups.

5) You people persist on proving something to me. But I don`t quite get what is it that you are trying to say? So I know you hate Jinnah.. So whats your point?

The fact is that if you look at the History of the Subcontinent, the partition happened when Gandhiji managed quite unwittingly to wreck the Lucknow Pact (the only pact which for a brief moment created Hindu Muslim Unity). If Jinnah is to be accused of using already existing factors to the advantage of His Muslim Minority or atleast part of it ... then Gandhi is guilty of bringing up the religious question in the first place... He clearly opened the Pandorra`s box by encouraging religious leaders into the fray by the Khilafat Movement.. and this too is a fact.

I can show you hundreds of instances in Gandhi`s works which would damning especially his anti-women`s rights movement stances (much in Mullah Omar Fashion) ... but I choose not to because there was certainly some good in Gandhi`s thought.. and I recognize it... but you Indians you are so cowardly and full of hate and bias that not only have you given up on whatever was Good in Gandhi but you are unwilling to be gracious and just in your estimate of other people.



Mahesh G,

Looks to me that you are either the son or a grandson of some communal murderer whose constant guilt is now making you lash out at Pakistan`s founder...

Let me tell you the standard for guilt `I took the Gun, and I shot my wife`.

Jinnah`s crime was only asking for the right of self determination for his constituents and his group. The result of that right of self determination was unfavorable to certain elements particularly Hindus and Sikhs and they started killing everyone.

So whose the murderer? tis like saying all the Murders that the Indian Army commits in Kashmir is because Mir Waiz or the Hurriyat Conference wants Independence... let me tell you something, it is on record that more 70% of those killed at Partition were people moving westward... and their children are proud of the sacrifices their ancestors gave for getting Pakistan and thats why they are the first ones to scream when there is injustice in Pakistan.

To Quote Thomas Paine from Common sense `We have the right to have our own government. TIS THE TIME TO PART`



The Bottom line is that Indians haven`t been able to reconcile themselves with Pakistan`s existence as is obvious by their reaction on these boards... seems to me that Urstruly was right all along about all of you. Listen .. We wanted Pakistan, and we Got Pakistan... so live with it.

You were unable to accept this reality in 1947 and that resulted in communal holocaust. You are still unable to accept this reality and this time there might be nuclear war.

Re the Jinnah tamasha

What the kid needs to do is to sell his people, the pakistanis, about the need for jinnah. His bleating over the merits of Jinah etc is like shouting into a vacuum. Nobody hears it and worse, nobody cares. It`s as effective as a hare krishna trying to convert the taliban or vice versa. All this jinnah this and jinnah that is a bloody waste of bandwidth as far as many of us of concerned, except for his acolyte on the west coast. And on top of this stuff, anybody who makes a counterpoint is at once accused of being a bigot and other wonderful names.

Ref sarwari

Re-read Chaudhri Rehmat Ali:

``Finally, and most damning of all, while the Hindoos acted so patriotically in spite of the fact that the British were their `defenders and liberators`, we Muslims behaved so slavishly in spite of the fact that the British were the destroyers of our Empire, the enslavers of our Millat, and the saboteurs of our whole Fraternity. I need hardly add that, had the position been the reverse, it is certain that the Hindoos` manly opposition, and our unmanly submission, to the British would have been a thousand times greater than they were throughout the past two centuries.``

This is a man who was betrayed by those who hijacked his vision. He was hounded out of Pakistan and died in England in lonely exile. Finally he saw exactly what kind of people rallied to his cause and what kind of country they created. Remember, this was written in 1950, just 3 years after Pakistan was born.

Let me give you some history that you never seem to have read. Get out a map of India (pre-1947)and look at where the state of Gwalior is located. Gwalior was a Hindu kingdom wrested from the Mughals who were ruling in Delhi, just a couple of hundred miles to the north. Look around that area and see how many kingdoms independent of the Mughals were already there, ruled by the Mahrattas who had chipped away at the authority of the Mughals. In 1857, the Mughal Emperor ruled in the city of Delhi only and his writ did not run anywhere else. That is why he sold off the right to collect revenues from his erstwhile province of Bengal to the East India Company, a right that was disputed by Siraj-ud-Dowla.

Yet, when Indians fought against the British, they agreed on Bahadur Shah II as their Emperor and fought under his flag. Even the Mughals` fiercest enemies, the Mahratta Confederacy, fought under Bahadur Shah`s name. Those Hindus, who you have been told did not share a glass of water with a Muslim, fought alongside them against the foreign invader. Ask yourself, where did that sense of unity against the foreigner go? Who sowed the seeds of disunity?

People accuse the British of the divide-and-rule policy. But a telling comment was made by an Indian delegate to the Round Table Conference. He said to a British representative at the conference, ``We divide and you rule``. Ask the question: who was dividing, the Congress that stood for a United India or the Muslim League that was harping on ``an independent homeland for the Muslims of India``?

More from Ch. Rehmat Ali:

[It is supported by the record of these quislings. To realise that, one has merely to refer to some their recent doings. Here are a few of their masterpieces of perversion:

When they betrayed us to the British, with whom they collaborated, they told us that the British being `the People of the Book`, their collaboration with them as against the Hindoos - `the People of the Kufar` was in the interest of Islam. Again, when they sensed that the Hindoos might replace the British as the rulers of

India, they joined the Congress, supported `United Indian Nationalism`, and told us that, as `Sons of the Soil` it was their duty - and ours to fraternise with the self-same Hindoos. Finally, when they saw the Ideal of Pakistan might materialise, they at once rediscovered their love for Islam and the Hindoos hostility towards Islam, realised for the first time the `alien nature` of the 200-year old British rule, and proclaimed that, it being inconsistent with their Islamic pride to support the `United Indian Nationalism` and to keep their hard-earned `British-bestowed Titles`, they were withdrawing their support from the Hindoos, were renouncing their `British-conferred Titles`, and were pledging their lives and labours to the sacred cause of Pakistan. In fact, some of them went so far as to state that they had had `Basharat` to do so; and some that they had been actually summoned to the `Darbar-i-Nabvi` and ordered there by the Hazoor himself to transform their lives.]

Who do you think he is talking about here? He is talking about those leaders of the Muslim League whom you celebrate as the founding fathers of Pakistan. He is telling the truth as it is but that truth is hard to swallow.

On another thread, talking about his personal experiences, Jay asks what his equivalent generation in Pakistan has done for their country. He accuses them of betraying Pakistan by doing nothing for the education of the masses. He is right and yet you all revile him as a mad dog who has a visceral hatred for Pakistan.

Let me give you a personal anecdote. When I was young boy one summer, I insisted I would go out with my dad during an out-station tour. He humored me and took me with him in his jeep and I was bored out of my gourd with the official proceedings, which all took place under a shade tree, which I did not understand. Some 20 years later when I thought back about that occasion, I realized what my father was doing. In one of the princely states integrated into India, my father was issuing title deeds to peasants, taking the land away from the former ruler. The process was called `settlement` and the land was being settled on those who tilled it. I also recalled an off-the-cuff remark my father made about a different princely state at an earlier time where he wrote the judgement that the land belonging to the state did not belong to the raja in his personal capacity and that the land had to be distributed to the peasants. My father retired next year on his government pension of 200 rupees a month and I went to college on a scholarship.

I have the right to ask: what did my father`s equivalent generation in Pakistan do for their country? Where is your land reform? Where is the empowerment of the common man? Do you think Benazir Bhutto would be able to tell a visitor that ``all the land as far as the eye can see around Larkana`` is her family`s possession if Sindh were still part of India?

Who gained and who lost in the creation of Pakistan? The civil servants and army officers who joined Pakistan got rapid and undeserved promotions and have continued to fill your bureaucracy and army with self-serving people. Your poor, your down-trodden, in whose name Pakistan was demanded have few rights and fewer opportunities.

Between the peoples of India and Pakistan, who has gained and who has lost?

When you answer that question honestly, you will understand why I rail against Jinnah & Company, no matter what their personal qualities were.

Ref ylh #: 453

[Here is a map of that `confederation` so to speak.]

So, all of a sudden, Chaudhri Rehmat Ali`s vision of what Pakistan should consist of is not to be taken seriously because it contains enclaves of Muslim areas in India? Then why the hell do you people continue to harp on Hyderabad and Junagadh alongside Kashmir as examples of British-Bania perfidy? Wouldn`t Ch. Rehmat Ali`s Usmanistan (Hyderabad) have been an enclave completely isolated from any other Muslim-majority regions of the subcontinent? And that fanciful landbridge across Saurashtra reaching into Junagadh: that is a beauty. As also the parrot`s beak that manages to incorporate Delhi into Pakistan. Isn`t that what some of your folks are saying, that they want to rule from Delhi?

It is not that Ch. Rehmat Ali`s dream of a country is an ungovernable nightmare. The pared-down version you got in 1947 was ungovernable and you have been paring at it ever since, with great success in 1971. It is still ungovernable as seen from the bombing campaign against the Balochs under ZA Bhutto or the continued inability to control your western border with Afghanistan. Keep this up, Yasser, and soon you will see West Punjab as the only place where the Pak govt`s writ runs.

re: harimau`s last 2 posts to ylh

ouch, ouch, ouch...touche Mr. harimau

``Jinnah never presided over the destruction of a temple or anything, Advani we know is a chief architect of Babri Mosque debacle.``

YLH, no he only presided over the murder of half a million innocents.

Ref ylh #: 456

[Harimau`s Shameless Selective Quoting of Hodson]

Two CONSECUTIVE pages from Hodson`s book, specifically from the chapter dealing with the Cabinet Mission Plan. That is NOT selective quoting. What do you want me to do, type in all 900 pages?

Jinnah`s tactics were described as not having the goals of a conciliatory attitude in a constitutent assembly or discharging the duty of good governance but tactics to PREVENT any Muslim other those personally beholden to him from holding National office. That is Hodson`s conclusion on the events of 1946. No matter what you do, you cannot excise that out of Hodson`s book.

Regarding Chaudhri Rehmat Ali, he is the man who articulated the vision of a separate nation of Pakistan and you want to call him an eccentric and an old fool. But read what he had to say about the role of the Muslims versus Hindus in the struggle against Britain. Didn`t he have it right when he said that the Hindoos demanded that the British quit India whereas the Muslims (of the Muslim League) were the barking dogs of the British? I suppose the dogs barked constitutional law, except they didn`t do so on Direct Action Day.